LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Elizabeth Obama is Better than Scott Romney

State Rep. Tom Conroy says the U.S. Senate challenger's economic approach is clear and factual.

The third debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown revealed again the root cause of the partisan polarization in our nation’s capital: it stems from the two different views of how the economy works, and the tax and deficit policies that stem from it. 

On one side, there are trickle down supply siders such as George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Scott Brown.  They believe in a scheme that goes like this:  if you cut taxes on the rich, they will spend more on yachts and the like, which will trickle down to the rest of us, and in the process, somehow magically, create jobs and shrink the deficit.

On the other side are Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren (and yours truly). We believe in reality based economics, based on history, and fact.  President Obama and Elizabeth Warren want to have an investment-based economy with public-private partnerships and a tax code very similar to the one that was in place when Bill Clinton was president.  During Clinton’s eight years, 22.7 million jobs were created and we went from budget deficits to budget surpluses. 

Scott Brown has repeatedly stated that he trusts Mitt Romney to be the best person to manage our economy.  And what is Romney’s strategy?  What’s his plan?  It’s the trickle down, supply side scheme.  This strategy has failed in practice.  When implemented with tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush, it led to paltry job growth (only 1.1 million jobs) and massive deficits. 

Then why would a person as educated as Romney disregard this history and these facts and espouse a failed plan?  Most of us here in Massachusetts know the answer:  supply side economics allows Romney to offer the American people their cake and the hope to eat it too:  cut taxes, solve the deficit problem! Magic!  It’s a classic example of Romney saying almost anything in order to get elected.  The people of Massachusetts know better, and that’s why a vast majority of us don’t place much trust in Romney.  But Scott Brown does.  He’s voted against job growth proposals, he believes in supply side economics, and seemingly wants to follow this failed route again.  And like Romney, Brown has been saying almost anything to get elected this year.  Why would we trust Brown on the most important issue of our future?   

Whom we entrust with our future should be based, in part, on who has a reality-based view of how the economy works and a fact-based plan for strengthening it in the future.  On this meter, Elizabeth Obama wins big over Scott Romney.  Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama deserve our support on Nov. 6. 

State Rep. Tom Conroy

JT October 11, 2012 at 07:28 PM
Conroy's letter makes perfect sense. Which is why the right wing wackos can't understand it.
Don Chauls October 11, 2012 at 07:47 PM
Thank you, Tom, for an honest, accurate, fact-based letter. As usual, responses on this forum never seem to be based on anything relevant to the content of your presentation. (With justification, since there is no plausible fact-based response.)
Mike Hullinger October 12, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Tom, With all due respect, Clinton did not produce a budget surplus. The Federal Budget and the National Debt increased every year of Clinton's administration. The Federal Government shifted the financing for its increases in spending from publicly held National Debt to borrowings from the Social Security Trust Fund. During the dot.com bubble employment and wages were high, resulting in increased Social Security tax payments by employees and employers. By law, the Social Security Trust Fund can only invest in special nonmarketable Federal governemtn securities (loans to the Federal Governement). During the latter part of the Clinton years the Federal Government simply shifted the increased funding burden to borrowings from Soc. Sec. This borrowed money will have to be repaid from future taxes or additional public sector borrowings. There was no surplus.
LessIsMore October 14, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Facts are facts and they are not owned by either side. However, they can provide support for a particular position. The fact is that lower taxes have almost always resulted in higher tax revenue due to the economic growth they produce. The fact is the policies that Mr Conroy is denouncing set the ground work for one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth the country has experienced. Reagan's tax cuts and policies were the foundation of a period of approximately 30 years of sustained economic growth. What the Obama/Warren/Conroy fail to acknowledge is that a high tax burden throughout history has been shown to constrain economic growth. Relief from this burden frees individuals and private organizations to pursue growth. Under Reagan, Jack Kennedy and in 1920's this has been proven true.
LessIsMore October 14, 2012 at 03:48 PM
Three times in the 1900's tax rates have been reduced and this has resulted in economic growth and increased revenue for the government. 1. Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent. 2. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). 3. President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation). Facts are stubborn things. They don't change. It is unfortunate that too many of our politicians fail too look at the actual facts but choose to make up facts of their own.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »